About this Show

[untitled]

NETWORK

DURATION
00:30:00

RATING

SCANNED IN
San Francisco, CA, USA

SOURCE
Comcast Cable

TUNER
Channel 24 (225 MHz)

VIDEO CODEC
mpeg2video

AUDIO CODEC
ac3

PIXEL WIDTH
528

PIXEL HEIGHT
480

TOPIC FREQUENCY

The City 7, Ms. Howard 5, San Francisco 4, Us 4, Avalos 3, Naoek Moody 1, Mf 1, Wiener 1, Leno 1, Monique 1, Chu 1, Dpis Cal 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    March 18, 2013
    4:00 - 4:30pm PDT  

4:00pm
supported entities? >> that's correct, and you're remembering correctly, supervisor, so i believe the last time that the city was able to fund the hotel tax allocations at the level that the code recommends was fiscal year 2007-2008, so it's been a number of years that we have deferred that or captured that growth for the general fund, and you're also correct to say that the fiscal 13-14 budget that was adopted last year assumes that the growth in the hotel tax benefits the general fund, so that's already been -- the board last year made a choice to utilize those hotel tax resources for the general fund rather than allowing for growth. >> just for a point of clarification around the hotel tax legislation, how is the
4:01pm
general fund able to absorb that increase separately from what's required according to the legislation based on the cap of what art entities receive? i know that it's not to decrease or increase, i think it's either 5 or 10 percent and anything above that can be captured by the general fund and so i'm trying to understand exactly how the general fund has been able to capture that without increasing those hotel tax recipients? >> i think it's a good question, supervisor. the code that's related to the hotel tax, as i understand it, and i know my colleagues will correct me if i'm misspeaking, provides that growth in the hotel tax would be allocated to certain arts related programs.
4:02pm
as is the case with most legislation, that allocation is a strong recommendation but is subject to the appropriation that is provided in the budget, and so the board and the mayor each year have the choice about whether to take that recommendation and fund it or defer that funding and utilize growth in those hotel tax revenues to support the general fund. >> thank you. >> you're welcome. so, moving on the next strategy that the plan recommends is to limit our non-personnel inflation growth, so similar to what we were talking about with the hotel tax, the plan recommends that for both
4:03pm
non-salary inflationary costs as well as non-profit colas or grant colas to grants, that in the first two years, the city should not fund inflationary increases in either of those categories but that in the subsequent years, modest increases should be provided. and so that's that one. and then this next one is really focused on one-time revenues in savings, so you'll see in the plan that we recommend reducing the reliance on these one-time sources just because it's not rel lie financially prudent to use one-time money to fund your ongoing cost, it's like getting a birthday gift from your grandmother and using it to pay your rent every month, it's not going to be there next month,
4:04pm
so it's the more financially responsible thing to do is to use those one-time sources of revenues for one-time expenditures, things like equipment, it investments, major capital investments that are more one-time in nature. another strategy here is to spread some of our significant one-time costs over a longer horizon, whether that's through lease financing or deferring certain costs. and then finally on the departmental side, the plan is recommending one and a half percent ongoing savings from departments in each of the five years of the plan, and that's consistent with what the mayor's budget instructions were this year, and i think it's also reflective of the size of the challenge. as i said earlier, i don't
4:05pm
think that this plan is saying don't grow, we have to cut, this plan is saying, we need to grow more slowly than what we're projected to grow by. the plan also spends a good bit of time highlighting some challenges at the department of public health and this table in the next slide i think really highlights the issue well. >> supervisor breed? >> i just wanted to go back to the growth projections, this doesn't necessarily include the police and fire departments which clearly need to grow in larger numbers than it currently is? >> so, the base case scenario assumes the five year hiring plan that we began last year in the budget and that was assumed in the subsequent budget. what that means is the ability for the city to reach 1971 full
4:06pm
duty police officers over the life of the plan. it would require three police academy classes each year and then one fire class each year. so, that's what the plan assumes right now. >> so, no cuts necessarily in other categories within the departments? >> it would assume that both of those departments would reduce their overall operating expenses by 1.5% after accounting for those additional staff. >> okay, thank you. >> so, on the health department side, what this table is trying to show is how does the department of public health's financial condition affect the city's financial condition. so, if you look at the first line, you'll see the overall
4:07pm
projected shortfall that is attributable to the department of public health. these are department specific costs but also the department of public health's share of wage increases, benefit increases, as well as inflationary cost increases. the department of public health is our biggest general fund department and it's also our biggest city department, and so it seems reasonable to assume that the department of public health should be allocated a share of general fund growth, so if we were to allocate their share of general fund growth, which in the first year would be 85 million dollars, we would still see shortfalls in the department of public health after allocating that new revenue. so, the plan is proposing that the department -- so -- >> ms. howard, supervisor breed again. >> sorry, so from my
4:08pm
understanding, there's a proposed 50 million dollar budget deficit from the department of public health, how does this proposed increase impact that because i'm assuming this is something based on what's been communicated to me around the department of public health, this is a consistent issue and so when we look at potential growth, are we looking at the fact that we're also absorbing the deficit or we will maybe need to absorb the deficit of the department? >> that's an excellent question, so included in that first number on the page, the 141.9 million dollars is our best projection of what that supplemental will cost the city next year, so that number includes the operating shortfall that they're experiencing this dwraoer and how that affects next year, so it's reflected here on the --
4:09pm
in the shortfall projection. >> so, which is why there's still -- >> 57 million dollar shortfall to start with. >> thank you. >> i think what's important to think about the health department, the department will be before you in two weeks to talk about this in more depth along with issues related to the supplemental, is that the projection that underlies this assumes very significant costs associated with opening a new san francisco general hospital, and so i think to the degree that -- i think there are a number of solutions which probably look quite similar to our citywide solution but the department of public health needs to work towards including how can we manage those one-time costs associated with moving into a new general
4:10pm
hospital, so in any case, excuse me, since we've allocated to the department their share of citywide costs, we also allocated to them their share of citywide solutions, so you can see the impact of those rolling forward. if the city is able to accomplish significant savings in our labor cost, if the city is able to accomplish unreduced inflationary costs in our non-profit contracts, other contracts and other non-personnel costs, those savings help the department of public health, but even with that, the department has a projected shortfall and we'll be needing to work with them carefully to figure out how do they address this and how does the city balance the needs of
4:11pm
the health department with all of the other departments. so, this is just a high level again reminder of how these strategies fit together and i think the next slide actually is for me is helpful because i think it demonstrates that we're trying to put together a balanced approach to addressing what is a structural imbalance in our budget, so this just shows you the sort of share of what each solution's share is towards reducing that shortfall, so you can see ongoing departmental savings initiatives, about a quarter of the overall approach, employee benefits, employee salary and benefit costs, about 20%, revenue, about 18%, and then all these other smaller pieces.
4:12pm
i'm happy to take any questions. i think today before you, there's no action item. my understanding is that the item for action will be coming back before you at the same time as the capital plan and the it plan, and certainly i'm happy to take any feedback or recommendations that you would have for me about this plan. the other thing i would just mention is that this plan also gives you an early sense of the kinds of solutions that will be necessary to balance the next two year budge so to the degree that you would like to give me feedback about that, that would be helpful as well. >> thank you, ms. howard, supervisor breed? >> thank you, what are we talking about in terms of the amount of money we're looking at if we were to absorb the increase in hotel tax revenue
4:13pm
into the general fund? >> i don't know if i have that number off the top of my head. i do have it at my table. can i get it for you in a moment? >> yes, thank you. >> okay, colleagues? any other questions at this time? supervisor mar? >> thank you, ms. howard, i was going to ask you, i know that we're going to talk about set-asides in a moment, so the five year plan assumes the reauthorization of proposition h or the public education enrichment fund and the children's fund, is that right? >> that's correct, supervisor. we certainly discussed what made the most sense to assume, but given the significant
4:14pm
interest and the importance of both of those funds, we assumed that both of them would be reauthorized and to the degree that they were -- if they were not to be reauthorized, that would change the projection. >> and given how voters of overwhelmingly supported the children's fund and prop h over the years, hopefully that's a good assumption. there is an amount of money that as the trigger has been pulled for the public education enrichment funds that i think is over 100 million and i know a couple of my colleagues said that amount should be paid back to the school district, but can you explain how prop h operates and if it's recuperates, we don't have to pay that back to the school district. >> so, the way the charter
4:15pm
works is if proposition h were not renewed or reauthorized, then the city would owe -- would be required to repay all of the amounts that it had deferred over the last several years and would have three years in which to do that. if it is renewed, then that's not required. >> do you know off the top of your head how much that is? >> i do not, but it is i believe in the neighborhood of 70 million dollars. >> colleagues, any other questions at this time, supervisor wiener? >> thank you, ms. howard, just one question. on slide 15 where it talks about fiscal strategies, additional tax fees and other revenues, is that -- does that include the 55 million for the vls? >> it includes an amount that
4:16pm
is equal to that, whether or not it would be the vls, i don't know, but it does assume that effective in the 15-16 fiscal year, there would be significant additional revenue of about 55 million dollars. >> okay, and so if you look at the bulk of the increase and the growth in the years, a majority of that is that 55 million, whether it's vls or something else? >> that's correct. >> and so my understanding of the state legislation that senator leno was thankfully able to get there will you, it would be a general tax that goes into the general fund, right? >> that's right, so if the measure were to be -- if a measure related to the vlf would be placed on the ballot in november of 14, it would be available to the city in the subsequent year and would be a
4:17pm
general revenue to the city unless it were a measure accompanied it to dedicate it in some way. >> right, so i know -- obviously it's a general tax and it cannot be a legally dedicated tax, but i know that there are many, myself included, and i imagine a majority of san franciscans based on polling i've seen who wlao*ef that the vlf revenue should be dedicated exclusively to transit and road resurfacing, and in fact i think st voters lacked confidence in that, i think it would almost certainly fail, so i think it's important for all of us to keep in mind that if we look at this projected possible increase, that 55 million of that, if that's the vlf and if we have either the discipline or an accompanying set-aside, then that 55 million may be dedicated to transit and
4:18pm
road resurfacing. >> i think it's an excellent point, supervisor. the -- as i think some of you know, the city's capital plan this year includes some recommendations related to additional funding for streets and transit and our overall transportation system which are included, those costs are include ined the five-year financial plan outlook, and the plan -- the capital plan does make recommendations about matching a vlf to those kinds of uses. >> and as you know, the prop b resurfacing money trails off, we're going to be in trouble if we don't have something replacing it. the voters i think accepted our argument that prop b would be a bridge and we would then have time to find more sustainable funding so we can keep up the
4:19pm
road resurfacing and i think it's important that we don't slip back into our negligent past ways of underfunding roads, i think the same is true of muni when you look at the level of deferred maintenance and our consistent underfunding of transit in the city and i do have concerns with the vlf funding if we put it on the ballot and if it passes, there could be a budget free-for-all, including some worthy policy objectives would try to take a piece of that when it should be dedicated to transit and road resurfacing and i think there's a lot of us that would have trouble supporting it if we didn't have that confidence. >> thank you for stating that. i know you as well as supervisor avalos and supervisor chu have been -- and will be working with the mayor closely on the transportation task force and my hope is that
4:20pm
through that process, there will be an opportunity to discuss these kinds of issues in a more robust way. >> i look forward to that. i think we've had an ongoing discussion recently about transit money and how they're to be used. >> colleagues, any other questions? supervisor breed? >> so, are we going the get the number today or probably later? >> i'll get it for you when i get back to my little desk over there. >> okay, so i just wanted to in regards to -- it would help me to understand how i would make any recommendations if i knew what that amount potentially is and what the impacts have been over the course of the past few years. my recommendation is that we look at increasing the allocation to the arts
4:21pm
community and what that would mean in terms of numbers, i'm not certain, but that's something i would like to see if at all possible for the current fiscal year and to not continue to defer in the next two fiscal years based on the plan. thank you. >> okay, colleagues, any other questions? seeing none, thank you, ms. howard. i would like to open this up to the members of the public. i have one speaker card by debbie vermin. >> good afternoon, supervisors, debbie ler m*in from the san francisco human services network. this five-year plan is to some degree divorced from discussion of our values and priorities in the sense that what we need is a plan for how san francisco will maintain sustainable health and human services for all of our residents including the most as a result --
4:22pm
vulnerable, there are two issues, one, there is no cpi assumed for dpis cal year 13 mf 14 for non-profits and two, there is no reduced or cost of doing business increases as a balance strategy throughout this report. the assumption that there is no cpi to non-profits this coming year was made because it wasn't part of the last budget. that's a fantasy, we never had a conversation about this second fiscal year in the two year budget and non-profits are facing the same cost pressures the city is facing, health care costs and inability to give raises, the issues are all the same, we have said repeatedly, if we are part of the solution, then we want to be part of the problem, we need to be in this deficit, secondly, the assumption that there won't be any cost of doing business increases, it costs around 20%. years of double digit health
4:23pm
care costs, no raises, the city keeps paying lip service to this issue you tell us we're important, let's do something about it in good faith, let's have the conversation and not shut the door. >> any members of the public who wish to comment on item number 1? okay, seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, at this point, i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. >> second. >> okay, second, we can do that without opposition. so moved. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item number 2. >> item number 2 is a hearing of city's reserve and set aside policy for fiscal year 2013-2014 and fiscal year 2014-2015. >> thank you, mr. clerk, the colleagues called for this hearing to try to get a sense of what we're facing in this
4:24pm
upcoming budget cycle, i thought this would be a good topic to move forward and we have monique from the controller's office. >> mon naoek moody, deputy controller. so, what we'll be addressing this afternoon, members, is the various reserves within the general fund, the baselines and the set asides that are required by charter or other legislation within san francisco. so, i'll speak to the general reserve of general fund money, the rainy day reserve which was passed by the charter, in the charter a number of years ago, the budget stabilization reserve which is an additional reserve that was passed by ordinance in a financial policy by the board of supervisors in order to augment the rainy day reserve because it's very unlikely and difficult to
4:25pm
withdraw from the rainy day reserve and then we have a couple of incentive reserves, both a citywide one and one specific to the recreation and park department, and then on the expenditure side, there are a number of voter approved expenditure requirements, index to either general fund revenues or other tax revenues or specific service or staffing requirements. with respect to the city's general reserve, it was the reserve policy was passed by the board in april of 2010, and that was subsequent to a charter amendment that we refer to as budget reform that also brought us the two year budget financial policies as well as additional reserves, and the purpose of this general fund reserve is to absorb a year-end
4:26pm
revenue or expenditure problems that occur that are not known when the budget is originally passed by the mayor and the board of supervisors, those dollars if used would need to be appropriated by the mayor and the board of supervisors in order to spend them. the increases -- the policy requires increases to the general reserve in the current year 12-13, the level that is required by our policy is 1% of general fund revenues equivalent to approximately 32 million dollars, and that amount will grow to 2% by fiscal year 16-17, and that has a dollar value of approximately 74 million dollars. and if the extent to which the general reserve is used during the year, then the amount that is used is then appropriated in
4:27pm
the next fiscal year to replenish it. this requirement of allotting this reserve at these amounts may be suspended by the board of supervisors in any given year by a two-thirds vote. and this table shows you year by year how our general reserve will grow. >> sorry, supervisor avalos? >> just a question, not that i would want to do this, but how is it that we can make an ordinance for if you want to overturn an ordinance, you would require two-thirds majority with a new ordinance, it doesn't make sense to me, so if you want to suspend the reserve or the amount of money that goes into the reserve, you would need a two-thirds vote from the board of supervisors, couldn't you pass an ordinance saying the reserve would be
4:28pm
different? >> that is a financial policy, supervisor avalos, and the policies, the financial policies that are recommended by the controller need to be approved by a two-thirds vote. >> that's by charter? >> the charter specifies a process by which the city will adopt policies and it does specify in the charter that those policies need to be adopted by a two-thirds vote. >> i wanted to make sure we had a true backstop on that. >> yes, that's a good question. a couple of years ago, the 25 million dollar reserve, i started with the budget analyst office in 1996, and our general fund reserve at that time was 25 million dollars, so fast forward to fiscal year 2011, it was still 25 million dollars, and thinking that the budget grew by 400 % or more during
4:29pm
that period of time, we still had that level of reserve, it gives you an example of how important it is for us to be able to build our reserves, so during that period, it was .85%, less than 1% of our general revenue and as you see, it will grow to a total of 2% at approximately 76 million dollars over time, and these are projected numbers, assuming the kinds of growths that we've assumed in the five-year plan. so, now the rainy day reserve was approved by the charter. the rainy day reserve require us that we deposit to this reserve when our growth exceeds 5%, that's a lot of money in any given year and 5% of the growth over this value would

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)